Not to beleaguer the point, but could you please show us this "goo evidence?" Simply upload edits to the images that call attention to the relevant goop...a simple red circle would do... Many of us here on Vortex analyzed, even over-analyzed, those photos. I'm not sure what temperature-conductive goop you're referring to. A also, be forewarned, even if there were conclusive evidence that the temperature at the secondary were completely corrupted and unreliable, you'll still be unable to convince many on this list (nodding in Mr. Rothwell's direction) that the treat is inconclusive. You see, some believe the fact that the E-Cat was hot-to-the-touch after the hours, and still sounded like some boiling was going on its first-principle proof that there was excess heat. No amount of calculations could diminish this belief. Many dead-horses were beaten in this pursuit. Please provide photos that may aid in analysis, but do not try to draw conclusions. Any dismissal of the October 6th data will be religiously derided, and you will, in all likelihood, be personally attacked...
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:54:47 +1030 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog > > On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the "Experts" that > > attended the demo. Some BIG names there. > > > > > > Hey, do me a favor. I agree that thermocouple (T-out) placement is > > critical and you can get almost any temp you want with incorrect > > placement. I also agree Rossi should have put the 'couple into the > > stream. But I don't quite see the trail of goop that tells you where it > > was originally before the insulation was moved. I hate to make work > > because this is an almost dead horse, but is there some way to make a > > clearer graphic about where the thermocouple tip was during the run with > > respect to the manifold and why? I see goop (probably silicon grease) > > on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. > > > > When this all went down, I mentioned that the way to do away with > > measurement errors was to use Joule heating to calibrate the entire > > system used to measure output energy. The believers poopoo'd it but > > it's still true that such methodology also should have been used by > > Rossi (and by everyone who promotes LENR). > > The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no > other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to > provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the > thermocouple head. > > Notice in the other 2 images it has been cleaned off the brass fitting. > Not a good idea for it to be there too long as some sharp eyed observers > may have questioned why that material was on that brass fitting. Can't > have the observers asking awkward questions. > > Why was the bead placed there? Simple. Doing so would deliver a higher > than reality Tout temperature, making the delta T look bigger than it > really was and making the Ecat appear as if it was generating more > energy than is was consuming. > > Horace got it right and was shouted down. Tells you something about the > agendas of some who post here. > > I like a good mystery and being a natural skeptic, I enjoy a bit of digging. > > As for this not being relevant, I don't agree. It goes to the heart of a > man who made multiple lies about the biggest event in LENR history, had > others cover it up and has worked out how to generate good looking but > still fraudulent data. > > Why does Rossi refuse independent testing? Because he knows the Ecat > can't deliver what he claims it can. So he lies and creates bogus data. > > He may think he is buying time to make the home Ecat work as claimed. > Maybe that is what he is doing and maybe he will eventually make it > work. That does not alter that he has told really big and serious lies > about the BBB, has been caught creating fabricated data and has damaged > Lewans reputation as being an independent and unbiased reporter. > > Shaun >
